Posted
by
Unknown Lamer
on Wednesday September 07, 2011 @08:35AM
from the in-my-first-life-i-have-virtual-friends dept.

theodp writes "In the '80s, Bill Gates and his then-girlfriend went on 'Virtual Dates' by viewing the same movie at the same time in different cities and discussing it on their cell phones. On Tuesday, Gates and 15 co-inventors were awarded U.S. Patent No. 8,012,023 for 'Virtual Entertainment', which Microsoft explains: 'The subject innovation provides for systems and methods that supply immersive entertainment, and create a sensation for a user(s) that is similar to having guests (who are in remote locations), to be presented as virtual guests to the user during performance of an event (e.g., a live sporting event, spectator game, television shows, games and the like).' And that silly Audre Lorde said there are no new ideas!"

Virtual Entertainment? - George Lucas has all sorts of prior "art" on that one.

Let's hope he sues. And everyone sues everyone, until everything comes to a standstill, an impossible-resolution scenario. After Intellectual Property World War One, perhaps we'll have some peace treaties. Because as things are going, soon you won't be able to buy soap and bread anymore, you'll have a Subscription to Biological Sterilization and Nutritional Services, with an Agreement and License to Use Proprietary Methods for Human Sterilization and Nutritional Planning Programs. For only $698.50 per month, you can get service contracts, training programs, and... soap, milk, and bread.

Yeah, but this is on the internet which is what makes it novel. Sure, we may have used video conferencing to connect people for business and video lectures at school to have students in multiple locations all share the same class and professor, but that was mostly CCTV. This is the goddamned interner we're talking about. Of course it's a novel, patentable concept.

Besides, if some goofball can patent "dividing the number of golf strokes outside 50 yards by # of greens in regulation" on an 18 hole round to get your "long game" handicap, certainly something like this deserves a patent.

You know, that gives me an idea!I'm going to patent a method of creating patents of ideas either absurdly obvious or already existent. That way all these patents will be, in effect, mine.The best thing about it? I'll probably get that patent!

There are many people who would be willing to fix it. The problem is that it is in the best interests of the people in a position to fix it not to fix it. And the people with the power to remove those people from office are too busy watching mindless TV shows.

It's not. vyew, gotomeeting, or whatever web conferencing software you're familiar with is prior art. Is the USPTO honestly saying that having an avatar in the conference window and it having something to do with an entertainment event makes this novel and some important advancement of the arts?

Just as there were hundreds of patents for "1. Do something that people have done for a long time 2. But On a Computer!" and "1. Do something that people have done for a long time 2. But On the Internet!", this is a patent for "1. Use the videoconferencing tools you normally use for business. 2. But For a Party!"

And yes, it's already been done. I was at a party a couple of years ago where one of the people was attending remotely from the Netherlands by videoconference, and then later, when she was in town

Howabout we patent virtual patents? Then we'd effectively own all patents in a virtual environment. Figure a way to translate the virtual cash generated by virtual litigation into real cash, and PROFIT!

For example: you can't patent using an float calculation, but you can patent float calculation inside a GPU and framebuffer when nobody but you (or your company) has been engaged in researching it. (AMD has been sued for that and lost).

Walking on two legs has been done before by other, so no patent for you. Walking on two legs in a computer program can't be patented either, because there is no hardware involved that you invented or thought up that n

Trade chat in World of Warcraft during the Superbowl or World Series or World Cup. Heh. (Of course, IRL I doubt I would have *any* of most of the people that troll trade chat in WoW over to my house, at least not without a plan to dispose of their corpses).

"... Step into the cell, and face the wall," the officer commanded. Virtual Reality did so, and the officer moved behind him and roughly released the cuffs.

"Do NOT turn around until I say so!" the officer barked, and the officer flinched a bit as he thought he saw movement in Virtual Reality's shoulder. The officer's hand flew to the tazzer on his belt, and he glared at Virtual Reality for a long moment.

Then the officer suddenly back peddled quickly and slammed the cell door shut. The electromagnet

No, Gates has a patent on deluding yourself into believing your friends who can't stand to be in the same room with you are actually your friends. This is a very unique situation that most people have not yet considered but he conquered with his unique visionary genius. And that is why it is patent worthy. If you have actual friends, you won't have to worry about the consequences of infringing his patent. Although FaceBook might claim prior art...

it is not about the patent being valid it's who has it and how much money they have. Will you fight him in court if he were to sue you for using Skype and having any fun doing it?

And that sad part is, he probably really believes he invented it too. Hey Bill, I think phone sex pre-dates your movie night dates and I'll leave it to your imagination which was probably more entertaining.

My brother met his wife on World of Warcraft, and since they lived states apart at the time they had "web dates." They used to have a date night where they'd get on the cells and watch the same movie. They did all sorts of creative things to keep the relationship going, before she finally moved to live with him and they got married. So sorry Gates, couple's who met online have been doing this stuff for ages.

Even before WoW, Everquest, or any other MMORPG like it, there was a Lucasfilm game called Habitat [wikipedia.org] that was released in the late 80's. There wasn't any real objective; it was more or less a graphical chat room where you can do different things like look for treasure, read newspaper, etc. People would go on "virtual dates" in that game. This long promotional video of Habitat [youtube.com] shows just how easy that would be.

Couple's who have had to spend lengthy times apart have been figuring out how to share experiences like this for a very long time. I did the same thing in the 80s, talking on the phone (landline for me back in those days) after a movie, or even calling during every commercial break during a TV show (which back in those days were automatically synched up for you).

There were probably people who decided to both go see the same latest Shakespeare p

There is... at least if your watching as a "Party" using the silly add-ons in the M$ Xbox Live Netflix application. It also lets you do live voice chat in the same interface, though I've yet to use it myself.

This stuff has been thoroughly documented in sci-fi books dating back several decades. I think the USPTO just give a free pass to anyone of particular note anymore without even examining the patent application. This crap is getting as ridiculous as trademarks that just slapping a damn "e" or an "i" in front of common nouns all of a sudden makes you special. I wish someone would invent a cure for lawyers.

Since TFA links to the pre-grant publication (with its at-publication-time-not-yet-examined claims) instead of the issued patent, here's the first issued independent claim:

A computer implemented system comprising: at least one processor that executes the following computer executable components stored on at least one computer readable medium:

a virtual reality generation component that emulates real-life activities of a guest that is remotely viewing a spectator event that takes place outside of a virtual environment into corresponding virtual activities of a virtual guest representation in the virtual environment; and

a presentation component that presents the virtual activities of the virtual guest representation to a user that is attending the spectator event as an in-person spectator, the presentation system to facilitate an interaction of the user with the virtual guest representation provided in the virtual environment as the guest is remotely viewing the spectator event.

I think that "horrible article" could be applied by default to "Hey, did you hear they're applying on patent for [trivial thing]?" articles. I'm no fan of the actual patent system, and it's clearly broken, but the version of the patent system presented on Slashdot is fictional.

So this patent was applied for in April 2008 and has just been granted. Disregarding any prior-art that existed before that date, what happens if you or your company "re"-invented this technology between 2008 and now? Do you now have to pay a nice fee to Bill Gates and his friends? That seems a little unfair to me.

Bonus question: If it took 3 years to grant a patent from 2008, and more and more things are being patented as the years go by, how long will it take to grant a patent filed in 2011? Six years?

So my reading of it says that a teleconference is NOT the same. If you have a real image of the person on the other side of the communication, that's not the "virtual reality emulating real-life activities" in the patent.

For example, one of the scenarios shown by Microsoft in the patent filing a belt with “electronic and electromagnetic tracking components” for sensing the movements of the user (although the patent doesn’t appear to be limited to that specific approach).

It sounds like they patented some vague idea of how something might be accomplished. That's not what patents are for.

this patent application was actually submitted way back in 2006 and only approved after years of back-and-forth with the patent office

I can see why... since it isn't a patent. Why was it granted at all? So in case I'm just overblowing this, lets look at the patent itself... [uspto.gov]

...Moreover, the presentation system 101 can employ a personal computer, a projection unit, a system including 3D goggles and headphones, or a simulator providing visual, audible, and physical stimulation, and the like, to present activities of the virtual guest to the user....

Aaand how would you do that? Elsewhere in the patent it talks about presenting virtual smells to the user. Right now, there is no technology to do that. This would be like me patenting teleportation by saying there is some sort of matter-to-energy and energy-to-matter device at either end, with some form of communication in the middle. That's the *idea* of teleportation, not a patentable implementation of it.

Almost every paragraph in the patent says something like this:

What has been described above includes examples of aspects of the claimed subject matter. It is, of course, not possible to describe every conceivable combination of components or methodologies for purposes of describing the claimed subject matter, but one of ordinary skill in the art may recognize that many further combinations and permutations of the disclosed subject matter are possible.

So it keeps admitting that they have no idea how to do this, or what combination of devices might achieve it, but they want to have all of them covered. Ordinarily, a patent author tries and make the patent broad enough to cover similar implementations - so that a trivial change can't be used to avoid paying the royalties. But this is ridiculous.

I think this is perhaps the second most quintissential example of the patent office gone wrong. The best example was when someone patented the tire swing. (Can someone find that? The closest I found was The patent on how to swing [slashdot.org].

... my future wife (married in 1976) and I did this. We watched our first opera together -- Don Giovanni on NBC -- she in Wisconsin, I (7 ayears old at the time) in Oklahoma. Of course, it would be a while before we would actually first meet each other.;~}

Watching a movie on TV while you talk to a girl watching the same movie on TV is the most pathetic date I can imagine. Only Fucking Bill Gates would think of patenting this -- he should patent ordering pizza, sitting around in his underwear, and squeezing pimples while he's at it.

Watching a movie on TV while you talk to a girl watching the same movie on TV is the most pathetic date I can imagine.

It depends on the girl. The reality is that some of us are living a long way from our loved ones for a few months or years and this kind of thing is the best we can do for now. An idiot would say, "Well your reasons for being apart must be stupid!" but who cares what an idiot says?

The is nothing new. Second Life has been doing this for years. Their system allows media to be set, movies from full length to YouTube can be streamed on a "Prim" in world so that all avatars can sit and watch the movies/videos at the same time as a "virtual date" of sorts and more.

I could see Linden Labs fighting this is they wanted to. regardless of what people think of Second Life they've already done this for several years.

How the hell does a patent so vague and obvious get granted when there is so much prior art? Video conferencing, IRC, VR, muds / MMOs, remote controlled sex devices, outdoor screens, pub quizes, remote TV broadcasts, etc. etc. There is prior art stretching back years.

Of course - we're all just responding to the/. synposis, though even that suggests that it is a patent for a particular set of technologies/methodologies for providing the experience and not the experience in general:

Windows Live Messenger, for instance, provides a "Watch this Together" link when you past a video or youtube URL to someone, which provides an API for synchronized viewing of the linked content. Obvious idea, sophisticated and non-trivial behind the scenes implementation.

in his novel "Against the Fall of Night", talked about this with a whole stadium of spectators. It also was made to seem that each of them thought they were in the best seats in the house and seated next to their friends.

There are also other, less known virtual worlds that have been doing it since prior to 2005.(I think Active Worlds [activeworlds.com] had this running in the same year or earlier? Needs to be checked.)

You patent a specific way of doing something, not the general thing itself. Therefore it's not possible for Microsoft to patent the idea of virtual entertainment because that idea already exists. All Microsoft can do is patent the way THEY would do virtual entertainment and then the patent lawyers and judges decide if patent infringing cases apply to the patent or not.

But even IRC has prior art, the "imaginary friends" of millions of children throughout history.

I've read a fair amount of science fiction over the years, and whenever I read about interesting aliens (not just humans with fake ears or brows as in the movies), I've often imagined what it would be like giving them a tour of wherever I was at the time. I'd guess that many sci-fi readers have had fun thinking of the reactions of neighbors to a visiting 8-foot insectoid or 100-kg millipede or cute cat-girl o